Agency TRANSPORTATION DEPT

Contractor The DLR Group

SWIFT Contract Number 3000035488

Project Name New Mankato District Headquarters

Project Number (if applicable) 91850

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: Contractor performed the following four (4) Architectural Design Services for the New Mankato District Headquarters Building: a) Service One: Engineering Study for adding the use of Ground-Coupled Heat Pump System (GCHP) to the current designed Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning (HVAC) System, b) Service Two: Add Skylights, Window Screens on the exterior of Building and Window Blinds, c) Service Three: Roof Design and Plans, and, d) Service Four: Building Code Review and Update. Note: The Bidding Procedures and Construction Administration will be added by an Amendment when funded by the 2008 Legislature.

Project Duration

Start Date Fri, 01/18/2008 - 00:00

Original end date Sun, 01/31/2010 - 00:00

Actual end date Thu, 01/17/2013 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $53400.00

Amendments $933648.00

Contract total $987048.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? Trunk Highway

Is this a sole source contract? Yes

If this was a single source contract, explain why the agency determined there was only a single source for the services (if applicable) The State Designer Selection Board picked Vetter Johnson, Inc. The Consultant has substantially completed design of the buildings under a previous Contract (Mn/Dot Contract No. 81574) which can no longer be extended due to the five (5) year rule. This project was included in past Governor’s bonding requests, but not approved by the State Legislature. It is anticipated to be funded in the next bonding bill, so design needs to be completed so the construction can commence once funded. Due to the delay between initial design and funding, the design needs to be updated. It would not be practicable for another architect to update the work already performed by the current architect, and it would not be economical to hire a new Consultant to duplicate work already performed by the current architect.

Evaluator Name Gail Ann Witzel

Evaluator Email Address Gail.andersen@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness As required

Evaluate the contractor's quality As required

Evaluate the contractor's cost Reasonable

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Put together a very fine facility for a complicated program.

Would you engage the contractor's services again? Yes

Describe any negative action taken during the duration of this contract (i.e., termination, pursuit of suspension, etc.): {Empty}

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 4 - satisfied